ORDER :

N. Seshasayee, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. 641 of 2012 has approached this court with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order dismissing her application in I.A. 275/2020 for re-opening the case for cross-examining D.W. 1. She has laid the suit inter alia against her husband and the parents-in-law for injunction and for other reliefs.

2. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application Vide the order now impugned. Be it a cursory reading, or a careful reading, what this order conveys in paragraphs 5 to 10 is evident: it is a general statement, expressing the agony which the courts are put to by some litigants. It is extracted below:

"5. The instant suit was filed in the year of 2012 for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property without following due process of law. This petition is filed before this court at the stage of final argument. Hence, this court forms opinion that, it is necessary to find out the real intention of the petitioner/plaintiff from the available case records to decide his application. On perusal of case diary, it shows that issued were